December solar activity in a big slump

The December data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center is in, and it looks more and more like the peak of solar cycle 24 has been reached, and that we are now past it. Even with documented problems like “sunspot count inflation” the sunspot count for December is quite low:

Note the large difference between the prediction line in red, and the counts. There are other indications that our sun remains in a slump.

The 10.7cm solar radio flux seems to have peaked also.

And, the Ap solar geomagnetic index has dropped to its observed second lowest value again (for recent years), which last happened in November 2011:

He thinks it will be the fall of 2013 though before the peak is reached

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.

Perhaps, the sun right now seems to be having a spot resurgence:

In other news, Dr. Svalgaard’s plot:

Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present

…looks like it is getting ready to flip, suggesting the peak of Cycle 24 is imminent if not already past.

202 thoughts on “December solar activity in a big slump”

Leif, if I may: You have been extremely conservative concerning papers which point to solar influences. Have you seen any papers, over the past few decades, which in your opinion, have a real chance of being accurate, re: solar climate change / cooling?

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”
Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

A dilemma. On the one hand it seems that global cooling will have a rather deleterious effect on agriculture and the standard of living of the world in general and so should be dreaded.
On the other hand unless we somehow kill off this CAGW meme convincingly once and for all we are forever going to be at the mercy of political engineered pseudo-science.
I suspect we will be better off after a couple of decades off cooling if we can at least get science back onto a scientific basis.

So far David Archibald 100% spot on from 3 years ago prediction (SSN ave max 40). The other magicians at NASA etc ALWAYS fail and only change their mind when the event actually is occurring eg Hathaways etc….very convenient.

temp says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:28 amGlobal cooling is going to suck alot.
Certainly, in a number of ways. Not in all, though. Fighting nature brings people together and encourages advancement, like perhaps nuclear-heated greenhouse complexes with several growing seasons a year via temperature control, optimal elevated internal CO2 (far higher than even today), and other factors adding up to result in many times the yield per unit area of regular farms if needed. Lesser forms of greenhouse agriculture, though small relative to the total market, are already expanding today.
A bit more extreme example in different context:“Thus the farmer in a typical American Midwestern farm who produces 100 bushels of corn per acre in a single season year [1970s figures] would look with astonishment on the space colony farmer who produces 4164 bushels of corn from a single acre in his 4-season year. While this factor of 40 is substantial, it is believed to be credible since a portion of it is derived from year-round growing.”http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/5appendC.html
The poorest nations least able to afford countermeasures are primarily near the tropics, which won’t cool much anyway, unlike higher latitudes, although impacts on food trade from elsewhere can occur.
The CAGW movement won’t be able to execute a switch to getting the cooling blamed on mankind this time, so they won’t be able to turn mankind against itself as much.

In the last solar cycle, sunspots were declining much by 2002-2003, but reduction of magnetic deflection of GCRs did not really get going until 2004, which illustrates how they can be partially out of sync. But, over the next several years, cosmic ray flux will much change.
On the short term, there is also an echo effect of El Ninos releasing some previous ocean heat back to the atmosphere. Yet, on the scale of later this decade and beyond, the effects of transitioning into a cold Grand Minimum will be an interesting time as judged from the past: http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif
The old global cooling articles like the old National Geographic of http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l correctly pointed out some aspects like more storms in a cooling world (greater polar-tropics temperature difference driving convection). No wonder “extreme weather” is starting to be extra hyped now (along with cherry-picking a single month post-storm on arctic ice extent rather than how the recent annual averages in http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo are comparable to the mid-1990s, which were in turn comparable arctic temperatures to the late 1930s in http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif ).

People have to realize the the sun is the main driver of the entire climate cycle on earth. Our solar system is always moving and when it comes into a region of more energy or less for the sun the cycles are much stronger or weaker. There is a cause and effect for everything and there is something we can not see yet that makes that happen. My feeling it is like the same thing when a hurricane is on open water and hits some warm water, it will intensify then when it move across colder water will weaken. Everything works the same in the universe, physics.
Just my feeling
P.S Anthony Watts, Thanks again for all your hard work on trying to keep the playing field even against the AGW’s. AWG’s have more power in media and government but they don’t have the true facts to back up claims.

If that spike a year ago was it, not good. Long way to go to get up to the red curve, and the red curve isn’t anything to brag about.
Fortunately we have excellent natural gas production to keep us warm, but unfortunately someone is intent on shutting down our coal fired electricity.

During the previous cycle the magnetic “flip” was a year or so before the peak of the cycle, so there may be another year till the peak of this cycle. The double peak looks more and more likely.
The previous magnetic “flips” have taken 9.5 to 11 years. The magnetic cycle shown above looks to be 13 years (or more?) long. Will the next minimum be around 2022?

I have followed solar activity for over 20 years and find the current cycle fascinating. I am convinced that before this cycle is over the question of the influence of the sun on the climate will be answered or at the very least much clearer. It is likely that by then quite a few people will have mud on the face. But it is also likely that most people will claim they always believed the impact was larger than publicly stated. You cannot win such arguments. If, as expected, the next cycle is even weaker, the cacophony about global warming will quickly become almost comical. And it is only 10 years away: Not that long to wait really.

I’m quite happy letting the peak be defined as the pole flip instead of anything from the sunspot number (too variable) or 10.7 flux (too flat at peak). The magnetic flux is near its peak rate of change at the flip, so it provides the “cleanest” date for the peak.
As for the current crop of spots – recent cycles seem to have “naked-eye” (read: unmagnified and filtered) sunspots. These aren’t worth looking for.
If we’re entering a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, this may be the biggest crop of spots we’ll see for 70 or 80 years!

I have been keeping an eye on the sunspot numbers since 2007 when the expected minimum between cyles 23 and 24 failed to materialize on time. It finally showed in 2009, 13 years after the previous minimum. See the long-term graphics at http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/sidc_graphics.php
The only recurring theme is that forecasts of sunspot numbers have consistently been inaccurate – beyond the known statistical variances.

Yes, December was low, but it’s rising again. We will have multiple peaks and a long plateau with the center on ~2014/15. Very slow and weak cycle. The next minimum not before 2021. Then it depends if it speeds up again or remain slow or even get slower. Then it’s a grand minimum (Eddy?).

AP Index minima for the last 6 years all occured in December.
Is this coincidence or did the solar magnetic field in recent years have a directional pattern with a distinct minimum in direction of the earth’s December position ?

It appears that the sun had two peaks every cycle and January is the start of the second peak. I am wondering if that dicrotic notch in the graph has a theory to explain it? Can we say yet that last month was the mid point of the cycle?

In the last 6 years, the Ap index distinct minima in December.
Is this coincidence, or had the solar magnetic field recently a directional pattern with a distinct minimum in direction of the earth’s December position ?

Henry Clark:
British tomato growers already use computer-controlled heating systems in glasshouses to allow a 9 month growing season in a climate which is marginal for domestic tomato growing and totally uncompetitive commercially in the outdoors. They collect rainwater from their roofs to water their plants. They either use organic waste in an anaerobic digester to become energy sufficient or, if they are owned by British Sugar and are located next to a heat source, draw heating through water pipes from the cooling towers to heat the glasshouses.
It’s already happening in many places.
The interesting question is what year-round production of vegetables means in terms of our global needs for grain crops (maize, wheat and rye).

I see the “Solar Polar Fields” levels have been getting smaller since the 70’s. I wonder if they will be looked into at some point in the near future and ‘adjusted’ in such a way that they are close to the same level through all cycles?

Henry Clark says: “The CAGW movement won’t be able to execute a switch to getting the cooling blamed on mankind this time, so they won’t be able to turn mankind against itself as much.”
Dave says, “Want to bet?” I think the whole move to the verbiage of Climate Change was due to some of the least sincere, but most educated people – with the most to lose, knew this Warming would not continue ad infinitum, even though their models said so. You will here new caveats – people will say, the damage we did through Ozone loss or some such crap, is responsible for the abrupt change in direction. Rather than saying, after 0.8 degree drop, should it occur in 5 years, that we are now neutral after 125 years of thermometer records, they will be blasting about how bad the climate will get. It will be our fault, trust me. There’s too much money to be made with calls for disaster. Not knocking you Henry, at all, I just know human nature, greed and guilt.

Of course, just in the last few days, the sun has had it’s biggest spike in the NOAA sunspot number in over a year. See link:http://www.solen.info/solar/
I would say it’s a little too early to call the peak just yet

Otter says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:34 amLeif, if I may: You have been extremely conservative concerning papers which point to solar influences. Have you seen any papers, over the past few decades, which in your opinion, have a real chance of being accurate, re: solar climate change / cooling?
No. Recent papers just continue the endless stream of such claims going back to Riccioli [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli ]. In his Almagestrum Novum, he stated that colder temperatures are associated with more sunspots ‘basing his comments on observations’.
General comment: when discussing when maximum is it is humbling to consider cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

Manfred says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:17 amIn the last 6 years, the Ap index distinct minima in December.
Is this coincidence, or had the solar magnetic field recently a directional pattern with a distinct minimum in direction of the earth’s December position ?
Geomagnetic activity is generally [normally] lower at the solstices, and Ap based mainly on northern hemisphere stations tend to be lower in winter than in summer. That said, the solar wind has also been less active in December the last several years. This is a coincidence.

I think the warmers will only be put on the defensive when the Arctic Sea ice extent moves into above normal territory. They say the Atlantic will return to its cool phase within five years. Certainly, they will mutate as before, but this change will really challenge their entire position.

A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), Posted 1/8/2012 on their site
Link was posted by some one else but they said something that was interesting.
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
Good readhttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
I tell you one thing, that COULD word is used alot when ever CLIMATE is mentioned.

Dave D says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
Henry Clark says: “The CAGW movement won’t be able to execute a switch to getting the cooling blamed on mankind this time, so they won’t be able to turn mankind against itself as much.”
Dave says, “Want to bet?” …. Not knocking you Henry, at all, I just know human nature, greed and guilt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately they already did the flip from NEW ICE AGE – Global Cooling to CAGW, Global Warming to the all inclusive Climate Change, Extreme Weather.
I already had a very nice Church lady explaining to me how CO2 causes Global Warming And Global Cooling And Extreme Weather. (Eye Roll)
The sheer stupidity of the sheeple is amazing. The fact the US Federal Reserve and similar fraudulent banking practices have run for a century or more bankrupting countries only proves it.

…Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939…Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)
The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)….Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money?Mr. Towers: Yes, I think that is a very fair statement of banking. (p. 285)Q. 12 per cent of the money in use in Canada is issued by the Government through the Mint and the Bank of Canada, and 88 per cent is issued by the merchant banks of Canada on the reserves issued by the Bank of Canada?Mr. Towers: Yes.Q. But if the issue of currency and money is a high prerogative of government, then that high prerogative has been transferred to the extent of 88 per cent from the Government to the merchant banking system?Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 286)Q. Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?
Mr. Towers: If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament. (p. 394)…..

Leif,
Given that SSN has been over-counted in recent years, I understand why you are not a supporter of the GCR-cloud link between solar activity and global temperatures. However, even removing the recent (50 years or so) correlation now considered to be spurious, there are other correlations between SSN and global temperatures. Do you place any confidence in the historical SSN numbers, such that these older correlations still hold? And, following on from this, how much do think this represents a causal link?
I would love to hear if you have thoughts on a mechanism for any possible causality, but I realize that you are not one to go beyond the data and I appreciate your caution in this regard.

Doug Huffman says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:34 am
@Bill itis, measured pan evaporation rates have been declining for decades…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>working link
I wonder if it might have something to do with this although I doubt it is that sensitive to such a long slow process.
It is certainly interesting considering the global relative humidity has decreased so all things being equal pan evaporation rates should have increased.

PS: Not surprisingly, climate “scientists” blame the extreme cold on global warming, to which cause without evidence (indeed in the face of all actual evidence) they attribute last year’s Arctic ice melt.

I am a scientist but have not looked deeply into the sunspot cycle or the PDO and effect on temperature. I think the next ten years or so will be a very interesting test of natural variability versus CO2. From about 1900-1920 or 1925 (from GISS) the temp. cooled and/or rose slowly (depending on land vs. land/ocean) and the PDO was in a slightly warm phase. With a small sunspot cycle and PDO apparently moving to cool, may give us some good information.

Rob Potter says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:17 amDo you place any confidence in the historical SSN numbers, such that these older correlations still hold? And, following on from this, how much do think this represents a causal link?
I think the [corrected] Wolf SSNs back to 1700 are close to the truth, and if so, many of the older correlations don’t hold up anymore.I would love to hear if you have thoughts on a mechanism for any possible causality
There should be [and people claim they find it] an 11-yr temperature variation of the order of 0.1 degrees simply due to the solar cycle variation of TSI. Beyond that, I don’t think any mechanisms or variations have been established.

Lew Skannen says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:45 am
A dilemma. On the one hand it seems that global cooling will have a rather deleterious effect on agriculture and the standard of living of the world in general and so should be dreaded.
On the other hand unless we somehow kill off this CAGW meme convincingly once and for all we are forever going to be at the mercy of political engineered pseudo-science.
I suspect we will be better off after a couple of decades off cooling if we can at least get science back onto a scientific basis.

Ok! After 400 years we are able to count Sunspots, Great. The spots appear to be strongly correlated to the Sun’s output.
The question of this Millennium is what causes the output of the Sun to rise and fall? Spots are just a “result”. Internal “surface plasma flows” must be driven by something that we can measure!
Where does the fusion of the Sun actually take place? At the center of the core or at the surface of the core? Almost all physical processes follow a sine wave [Fourier Series]. What is the Fourier Series for the Sun?

Leif says:
“There should be [and people claim they find it] an 11-yr temperature variation of the order of 0.1 degrees simply due to the solar cycle variation of TSI. Beyond that, I don’t think any mechanisms or variations have been established.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Changes_in_ultraviolet_irradiance
Do you think the UV component which appears to vary much more strongly might play a role?
As noted in the Wikipedia entry, people suggest a mechanism.
1.5% between cycles, 4.3% in proxy study, that’s 15-40x larger than TSI in variation.

Mr Lynn says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:52 am
Apparently this Mark Lynas has been active in the Climatist cult, too. Wonder if he’ll return to science there, too.
Not according to his OP-Ed in today’s Times:
“Don’t be fooled: man-made global warming does exist
Temperatures before long are likely to be higher than for 50 million years”

milodonharlani says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:31 am
PS: Not surprisingly, climate “scientists” blame the extreme cold on global warming, to which cause without evidence (indeed in the face of all actual evidence) they attribute last year’s Arctic ice melt.
###################################
actually, it was predicted. Here is a hint. Global warming is not homogenuous ( some places cool, but more places warm) and its not monotonic– you will have cool periods, but long term trends are positive.
valid Debates:
1. what is the spatial distribution of warmer places and cooler places.
2. what is the temporal variability ( how long do plateaus last )
3. What is slope of the long term trend.
Now, if AGW predicted that it would get warmer everywhere day upon day, it would easy to dismiss. Alas, it does not. Believing that AGW predicts homogenuous monotonic warming is fooling yourself. And we know what feynman said about fooling yourself.
If you want to see how to avoid fooling yourself watch how Leif reasons. That is science. he’s been at it for decades.
REPLY: Both Leif and Mosher should have a look at the next story from NASA – Anthony

***
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:11 am
***
Dr S, the cycle14 graph you linked seems to show an intra-cycling of around 8 months time-period. Just random, or is there some underlying process?

Mike McMillan says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:27 am
If that spike a year ago was it, not good. Long way to go to get up to the red curve, and the red curve isn’t anything to brag about.
Fortunately we have excellent natural gas production to keep us warm, but unfortunately someone is intent on shutting down our coal fired electricity.
A picture just flashed into my mind of a windfarm buried in snow!

Dave D says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
educated people – with the most to lose, knew this Warming would not continue ad infinitum, even though their models said so.
Models work by projecting the past. They can’t predict the future!

Dr. Lurtz said:
“The spots appear to be strongly correlated to the Sun’s output. ”
I think you meant magnetic activity . The Sun’s total orbit-adjusted output (TSI), is pretty close to a constant, with only a 0.7% variance over solar cycles.
“Almost all physical processes follow a sine wave [Fourier Series].”
I think you meant to say: some physical processes can be modelled using Fourier series to approximate smooth functions in the models and some process measurements can be analyzed using Fourier analysis to decompose spatio-temporal measurements into their corresponding spectra.
“What is the Fourier Series for the Sun?”
I think you meant to ask “What is the frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun?” Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

Once more I play the stick in the mud. This will not, have any impact on the narrative. In fact, having a quiet sun is quite convenient for the Ordo CAGW of the Church of Marx. Expect the team to play this up. A cooling sun will be used to explain the lack of predicted warming. The “calculated/predicted/pulled out of the …” cooling effect will be added to the temps to arrive at the “true”, blessed by Hansen, temperature which will coincidentally match predictions precisely.
An inactive sun can be responsible for global cooling, while an active sun has no effect. The lefty mind is quite capable of believing two completely contradictory theorems without any problem, as they demonstrate time and time again.

nemo says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:20 amDo you think the UV component which appears to vary much more strongly might play a role?
If it did then the 11-yr solar cycle should be strong in temperatures and it is not.
Steven Mosher says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:23 amREPLY: Both Leif and Mosher should have a look at the next story from NASA – Anthony
I did. Here are some quotes from the Report:
[page 7]: “Ongoing discussion of the role of solar variations in the early 20th century has given rise to the unfounded conjecture that the observed increase in temperature in the last half century could also be due to changes in TSI rather than to anthropogenic influences”
[page 14]: Foukal stressed that there is no evidence for the large (~0.3 percent) increase in TSI during the early 20th century reported in a recent, widely quoted, study based on 10Be. That level of increase in TSI would require the complete disappearance of the quiet network and internetwork going back in time to 1900. This requirement contradicts the presence of a fully developed network on Ca K spectroheliograms available since the 1890s. Foukal asserted that this model, which also predicts strong TSI driving of climate throughout the Holocene, cannot be correct.
[page 17]: In response to a question from the audience on the “climate/cosmic ray hypothesis” (i.e., that cosmic rays decreased over the last half of the 20th century and that this decrease is linked to the climate change of the past 30 years), Muscheler stated that proxy data indicate that the cosmic-ray flux actually decreased early in the 20th century, but recently the level has been steady and high. Based on the proposed link between increased GCR flux and cloudiness, one might have expected that the late 20th century would be cooler than the early 20th century—a state that was not observed.
[page 19]: However, he asserted that it is clear that the current evidence for solar forcing from paleoclimate is very limited, and most records do not provide the necessary resolution or signal strength to detect a solar signal if it is present.
[page 20]: Ka-Kit Tung examined this matter by focusing on the longest instrumental temperature record, from central England, which extends back over 350 years, as well as estimates of the global surface temperature instrument record since 1850 to help define a component of these records due to unforced internal variability likely associated with the AMO. This analysis suggests that more than 90 percent of the variance in temperatures can be accounted for by non-solar forcing factors and internal modes of variability.
[page 27]: Although there is a 5-20 percent change in GCR-induced ionization in the troposphere over the solar cycle, this results (due to a number of dampening factors) in a smaller increase in nucleation rates, an even smaller increase in cloud condensation nuclei, and finally, a still smaller change in cloud amount. Thus it appears that the ion-aerosol clear-sky mechanism is too weak to explain the observed cloud changes, even with favorable assumptions for model inputs.

beng says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:23 amDr S, the cycle14 graph you linked seems to show an intra-cycling of around 8 months time-period. Just random, or is there some underlying process?
Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.

vukcevic says: January 9, 2013 at 4:09 am
January 2013 has stated with a bit of spurt:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
but is it going to last?
Looking at the graph, it seems like every time a month (or two) is an outlier the next month (or two) swings the other way.

Re: sun and climate.
While correlation is not causation, there does seem to be a striking correlation between solar grand minima and periods of cooler climate during the late Holocene. I am starting to place more confidence personally into two notions: 1. reduction in UV has a significant impact while overall TSI doesn’t change very much. 2. Svensmark’s notion of GCRs having an impact on cloud formation. Either one is potentially significant but if both are working as some hypothesize they are, it could make a significant difference in surface climate during periods of weaker solar activity. Svensmark claims that only a 1%-2% variation in clouds is enough to create the conditions we notice during periods of weak cycles. So a combination of increased low cloud cover and reduced ozone formation might be enough to explain what we have seen in the past.
I’ll be waiting to see what if any change we see in cloud formation, particularly over the coming normal solar minimum between 24 and 25.

Sunspot group 11654 looking decent, as it comes around into view. However, I’m telling you, these sunspots are nothing, compared to ones we had when I was a kid.
“What were they like, Grandpa?”
“Well, I kid you not, but one day, when the sun was barely seen through a thin overcast, I was out hunting dinosaurs in the woods, and happened to glance up at the sun, and…”

The Russians have it figured out. The Central Bank of Russia issues gold and silver bullion pieces that ‘must be accepted’ as legal tender
Most of the Russian income is from selling natural gas and oil to the EU. They suspect that in a year or so ‘the Euro’ – EU currency may hit rocks, hence their commodity sales will be priced in the ‘bullion’ equivalent.

Theoretically what is the minimum solar wind speed? It would be interesting to compare daily minimum to that theoretically value as solar cycle 24 progresses. I would expect the observed solar wind speed minimum to fall below theoretical minimum.
What is the minimum theoretical value of the solar polar large scale magnetic field? It would be interesting to compare the theoretical minimum to observations. The field strength of individual sunspots continues to decline. A portion of the magnetic field of individual sunspots is pulled off the sun and moved into the heliosphere. If one flips the problem around (i.e. Try to come up with a theoretical model where it is possible to have an interruption to the solar magnetic field mechanism.) what is the minimum field strength of individual sunspots such that they will be broken apart by turbulence in the solar convection zone.
Comment:
There is observational evidence of a imminent major Icelandic eruption. It is going to be a race: Svensmark cooling against the next major volcanic eruption. If I understand the third solar mechanism, Svensmark’s mechanism is being inhibited by the solar magnetic cycle change. The gig is up, for the extreme AGW paradigm if there is unequivocal cooling.
However the paper concluded that, “in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record”.

When it becomes apparent that we are heading into another period of real cooling, then the alarmist voices will become completely shrill and they will call for ever more dangerous and totalitarian actions by governments.

Andrew,
Please help me understand how to reconcile the reported SS# of 117 on the “World Climate Widget” to the story above. Is there are formula I can use? (Clearly the diff is related to what Leif’s story explained about inflated SS#’s?)
Last month the widget reported the SS# as: 61. That seemed to make sense to me. But now? Now I see that what I thought I understood was merely a coincidence-and it’s a little frustrating.
P.S. I REALLY appreciate all the free tools ‘at-a-glance’ that you offer your readers. You’re da’ best! Thanks much.

I think something that has been missed in the attempts to prove a GCR climate linkage is that the comparisons to cloud coverage data have been done mainly using a global scale. The reality is that the GCR cloud linkage should only be seen strongly in areas of the atmosphere where lack of cloud formation nuclei is the limiting factor in cloud formation. In areas where moisture content of the atmosphere is the limiting factor, changes in GCR flux should not have a noticeable effect, and may actually have a reverse effect on cloud formation by providing even more nuclei for limited moisture volumes to condense around, thus further reducing the moisture available to form clouds that would have any impact on climate.
With regard to that concept, I have always looked at the tropical pacific as the most likely place to be able to see GCR flux amplification of the solar impact on climate, because the abundant moisture in the atmosphere and the relative lack of land areas make cloud formation nuclei likely to be the limiting factor on cloud formation. I find it interesting that NCAR is out looking for a mechanism for the larger than expected effect of the 11 year solar cycle in this area. My advice is to stop sampling water and start sampling air and GCRs in the tropical pacific troposphere.

Leif, if I may: You have been extremely conservative concerning papers which point to solar influences. Have you seen any papers, over the past few decades, which in your opinion, have a real chance of being accurate, re: solar climate change / cooling?
Hi Otter, for what its worth, I think most wuwt followers have concluded that solar cycles and Earth significant variation in climate is linked. In the UK, the correlation has been high. Hot weather back in SC22-23, punctuated with cold winters during the solar minima, then very cold winters during SC23-24 minimum, and since then cool weather during SC24.
Same for most countries I think.
Lief is undoubtedly amongst the most knowledgeable on solar stuff, but his conservative nature means he’s not as open to conjecture as he ought to be, when so much new data is coming in from new sensors.
He won’t even look at the electric universe theory. … I rest my case.http://www.youtube.com/thunderboltsproject

So it sounds like we will stay with the 0.1 degree temperature variation until more reactionary measures are required with more actual data. The problem here is that there may be few solar cycle sets that overlap good temperature data to do any meaningful modeling. This is comparable to taking an average of economic cycles that are already known to be structurally different from the latest one and a new normal going forward. There are not enough relevant cycles to work with. That kind of admission is quite different than taking the gross average of the cycles anyway without mentioning the pitfalls and the structural differences if any are known. Or maybe solar science does not really know any of the structural differences in cycles and it is all chart watching and averaging!

Leif Svalgaard says:
Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.
Orbit of Venus is 224.7 Earth days : 224d / 365d=0,61y
inferior conjunction (Earth and Venus in line with Sun) every 584 days, on average.
584/365=1.6 years.
Due to the close orbit of Venus it’s mutual gravitational attraction with the sun is comparable to that of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn.
That , of course, is “numerology” but it could also be the case that: they could be NON random fluctuations of a complex system.
Just sayin’.

Jim G says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:54 amLooks like your “humbling” citation occured concurrently with some very cool temperatures. What say you?
Since cycle 24 [which is much like cycle 14] occurs concurrently with the ‘hottest years, evah’ what more is there to say?
tallbloke says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:01 am“His predictions for cycle 24 are looking better and better.”
Only if you ignore the inflated spot count mentioned in the last solar thread.
nonsense, as we predict the ‘inflated count’, i.e. the current sunspot numbers.
crosspatch says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:22 amWhile correlation is not causation, there does seem to be a striking correlation between solar grand minima and periods of cooler climate during the late Holocene.
From page 14 of NRC report: “This model, which also predicts strong TSI driving of climate throughout the Holocene, cannot be correct.”
page 19: it is clear that the current evidence for solar forcing from paleoclimate is very limited, and most records do not provide the necessary resolution or signal strength to detect a solar signal if it is present.
page 20: more than 90 percent of the variance in temperatures can be accounted for by non-solar forcing factors and internal modes of variability.
William Astley says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:58 amTheoretically what is the minimum solar wind speed? It would be interesting to compare daily minimum to that theoretically value as solar cycle 24 progresses. I would expect the observed solar wind speed minimum to fall below theoretical minimum.
The minimum speed is 254 km/s, basically the escape velocity at the height where the solar wind originates. It is not likely that that the solar wind speed will fall below that. One way out of this would be to postulate that that height is becoming larger, but that sort of goes in the wrong direction as one would expect a weaker sun have a lower height of escape.What is the minimum theoretical value of the solar polar large scale magnetic field?
Presumable zero. But nobody knows.what is the minimum field strength of individual sunspots such that they will be broken apart by turbulence in the solar convection zone.
Not quite the way it works, but it seems that sunspots do not [cannot?] form with a field waeker than 1500 Gauss.
Barbee says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:12 amPlease help me understand how to reconcile the reported SS# of 117 on the “World Climate Widget” to the story above.
NOAA [which supplies the data for the Widget] uses a different SSN scale that the official number. To comvert the NOAA number to the official SSN, multiply by 0.72.
meemoe_uk says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:51 amHe won’t even look at the electric universe theory. … I rest my case.
On the contrary, I have looked carefully at the EU ‘theory’ but found it severely wanting [if not out-right nonsense], so I don’t think you have a case…

Way back in pre history, NASA, as I was told, predicted, and wrote about, future events, one memorable one being that we were in for a `major` high when it came to SC 24.
Apparently one heretic even went as far as to claim, writing in the public domain no less, that NASA was `just plain wrong`,
and they were. which is unfortunate really as that demoted the heretic to just being one of the good guys,

wfrumkin says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:15 am
It appears that the sun had two peaks every cycle and January is the start of the second peak. I am wondering if that dicrotic notch in the graph has a theory to explain it? Can we say yet that last month was the mid point of the cycle?
—
The dual peak might be interpreted as the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun peaking slightly out of phase by a year or so.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:2
tallbloke says:
“His predictions for cycle 24 are looking better and better.”
Only if you ignore the inflated spot count mentioned in the last solar thread.
nonsense, as we predict the ‘inflated count’, i.e. the current sunspot numbers.
Nice bit of circular reasoning Leif. 🙂
Current cycle, very very low, as predicted by planetary theorists over a decade ago.
So, count every speck and pore as a sunspot, to bump up the numbers as much as possible.
Cycle 19, very very high according to Waldmeier.
So, make an adjustment to reduce the number, to make it look like the Sun is more constant than it really is. Suits the people paying the piper anyway.

Steven Mosher says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:23 am
…….
The geo-polar temperature amplification is strongest in the high latitudes where the solar/earth magnetic field effect is at its strongesthttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ATO.htm

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:23 am
Jim G says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:54 am
Looks like your “humbling” citation occured concurrently with some very cool temperatures. What say you?
“Since cycle 24 [which is much like cycle 14] occurs concurrently with the ‘hottest years, evah’ what more is there to say?”
Here is an instance where more recent data may be significanly scewed to the hot side by poor site selection, UHI effects, and outright skulduggery that did not exist at the beginning of the 20th century. Recent reported thermometry for surface temps may not be that reliable and there are no satelite comparisons from 1902-1913.
This is not to say that TSI is the only potential factor for those temps measured in those earlier times. As a matter of fact one might consider possible delayed effects of previous solar upswings or downturns or oceanic occillations both then and now affecting either positively or negatively upon temperature at a given time. Bottom line, I would agree that a sample of one or two events does not make for a great statistical fit, particularly with all of the other potential causal variables being unknown for the past situation. Plus, there has been no warming for the past 16 years.
It will be getting colder. The sun plays a bigger role than it is getting credit for. The 1902-1913 Solar Cycle is, indeed, “humbling”.

page 19: it is clear that the current evidence for solar forcing from paleoclimate is very limited, and most records do not provide the necessary resolution or signal strength to detect a solar signal if it is present.
page 20: more than 90 percent of the variance in temperatures can be accounted for by non-solar forcing factors and internal modes of variability.

We know that climate cooled during a period that had several grand solar minima in rapid sequence (of which the Maunder was one).
We also know there was another such period earlier than that (Homeric Minimum) where we saw climate impacts corresponding with a grand minimum. I also stated that we will have to wait and see what such things as cloud cover do. While I believe the two comments from pages 19 and 20 are what the researchers believe to be true today, beliefs in the scientific community have been changed due to new information all the time. A lot of people doubted continental drift, too. I am interested to know IF there is a change in cloud cover. We already DO know that there has been a change in stratospheric temperature (it has been generally cooling). I don’t think I stated that I believe that these ARE what is happening so much as I tried to say that it will be interesting to watch this unfold and see IF it is. A 2% change in cloud cover, for example, that corresponds to an increase in GCR counts that also corresponds with cooling would be significant support for Svensmark.
Yes, correlation is not causation, but we have been seeing the correlation multiple times … what exactly the causal mechanism is remains to be seen.

“We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759 ± 39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199 ± 9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum.”
…
“A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.”http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n11/full/ngeo1282.html
Which you pointed out here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/07/solar-grand-minima-linked-to-cooling-period-in-europe/

It is possible that all of this can be explained in changes to the NAO. It could be just due to the unique configuration of the Northern Hemisphere that changes in wind/pressure patterns cause a much stronger change in climate over land masses of Europe and North America where a lot of people live than it does in the Southern Hemisphere. Maybe this is due to the fact that there is relatively little land in the higher latitude temperature region in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern and so we don’t see as dramatic a change over as much of an area of land as we see in the NH.
In other words, a small solar might cause changes in wind patterns that result in what are actually fairly local changes in conditions but it just so happens that the locality of those changes is where a lot of our food is grown and a lot of people live. A killing frost in a relatively small area results in famine over a much larger area.
But any notion that somehow the LIA and the several solar grand minima that occurred during that period are somehow just coincidence seems a bit of a reach. I would still keep my mind open to the possibility with the caveat that maybe we don’t understand exactly WHY but should probably accept that it DOES.
Has anyone yet seen a grand solar minimum with an associated sudden significant increase in temperature? I do note that a paper rather recently from Dr. Jones at UEA shows the LIA turning up in Patagonia, too. It had been previously thought to be mainly a Northern Hemisphere event. But is might just be because there is little land in the Southern Hemisphere at the latitudes where the impact from such an event would be felt.
For example, the amount of land impacted by changes at 45 degrees latitude is much different in the NH than it is in the SH. Things that make dramatic changes in the NH may go practically unnoticed in the SH.

Just wait, everybody is going to start freaking out about the higher solar activity this month. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lower end X flare didn’t start the usual chorus of Carrington end-of-civilization caterwauling. And by Feb-Mar it will be back down again. And having predicted that, I would not be surprised if the Sun didn’t do just the opposite. I just don’t expect it.

tallbloke says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:01 pmSo, count every speck and pore as a sunspot, to bump up the numbers as much as possible.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. If anything the current cycle is undercounted.
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:17 pmthe solar/earth magnetic field effect is at its strongest
There is no such effect.
Jim G says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:19 pmBottom line, I would agree that a sample of one or two events does not make for a great statistical fit
Yet you try anyway…
crosspatch says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:38 pmWe know that climate cooled during a period that had several grand solar minima in rapid sequence
But we do not know if those are related.Has anyone yet seen a grand solar minimum with an associated sudden significant increase in temperature?
Of course, yes, but when that is pointed out, various excuses are produced: the data is poor, the grand minimum was too short, etc.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:23 amSince cycle 24 [which is much like cycle 14]
So you think that there is an internal 100 year memory, or it is 105 year planetary cycle
as identified by vukcevic nearly 10 years ago:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
‘Proper’ solar scientists do not have a ‘consensus’ theory of causes of sunspot cycles repeatability, do you have one?
‘Pseudo scientists’, mainly ‘planetarists’ consider gravity , angular momentum and other mechanical forces, which act along strait line, so no planetary alignment can be synchronized with solar cycles.
I am unique among ‘planetarists’ to promote electro-magnetic feedback between solar magnetic field and planetary magnetospheres, mainly caused by the CME forming temporary electric and magnetic circuits from solar corona to planets magnetosphere. While they last ‘magnetic ropes’ linking the sun and Jupiter magnetosphere (partially affected by Saturn’s presence) are wound up into Parker spiral due to sun’s rotation.
Magnetic ropes along Parker spiral form an angular alignment which identifies rise and fall of the solar cycles along 105 year ‘grand’ cycles.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/J-S-angle.htm
Graph 3 in the link will tell you why cycle 24 may resemble SC14.
The above is basis of my hypothesis for calculating evolution of solar activityhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Now Dr. Svalgaard what is your hypothesis on which you base your statement :
“Since cycle 24 [which is much like cycle 14]” ?

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 1:41 pmSo you think that there is an internal 100 year memory
Dynamo theory easily can produce such longer ‘cycles’, except they are not strict cycles [and neither are the Sun’s].I am unique among ‘planetarists’ to promote electro-magnetic feedback
Being unique does not make one right [more often it makes you wrong], and as we have discussed ad nauseam, electric and magnetic feedback cannot propagate upstream. Your use of ‘electro-magnetic’ is misleading. Either say electromagnetic [which is normally used about light] or electric/magnetic. But since what you do is not science, perhaps it does matter what you terminology you prefer.Now Dr. Svalgaard what is your hypothesis on which you base your statement :
“Since cycle 24 [which is much like cycle 14]” ?
On observations, on observations, Vuk; e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

an 11-yr temperature variation of the order of 0.1 degrees simply due to the solar cycle variation of TSI. Beyond that, I don’t think any mechanisms or variations have been established.
And they won’t have the mechanisms until we actually have a couple of decades of Maunder type minimum. We know that solar UV has a large effect on the upper atmosphere. We also know that solar UV photons are far more energetic than IR photons.
That will be the direction of the connection.

denniswingo says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:21 pm“Beyond that, I don’t think any mechanisms or variations have been established.”
And they won’t have the mechanisms until we actually have a couple of decades of Maunder type minimum.
And what will we do if the temperature doesn’t drop correspondingly? Take that as vindication of AGW? If temperatures drop, then it could still be part of longer-term of non-solar climate trends [like for the first Maunder Minimum, perhaps] So, I think a Maunder Minimum is not going to make any difference. People are too set in their misconceptions [either way].

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm“Dynamo theory easily can produce such longer ‘cycles’”
Not much of an answer, unless you can tell us how dynamo can do it, and obviously you can’t.
Your ignorance about this is no excuse. There are many ways the dynamo can do this: e.g.http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2005-2&page=articlesu27.htmlDo you think that there is an internal ~ 100 year memory, or is is the 105 year planetary cycle
I thought the answer was clear. But to re-iterate: No, to both questions.

vukcevic says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm“Dynamo theory easily can produce such longer ‘cycles’”
Not much of an answer, unless you can tell us how dynamo can do it, and obviously you can’t.
Your ignorance about this is no excuse. There are many ways the dynamo can do this: …
I won’t inundate you with papers you wouldn’t [and couldn’t] read in the first place, but here is another one to give other readers an idea: http://www.aip.de/groups/MHD/publications/99/maunder2.pdf

Leif Svalgaard says
Jim G says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:19 pm
“Bottom line, I would agree that a sample of one or two events does not make for a great statistical fit
Yet you try anyway…”
Admittedly anecdotal evidence,so don’t stoop to your old levels of snide response, I only asked what you had to say about it. You were the one quoting cycle 14 in the first place, which “just happened to be” a very cool period. Just trying to pry your mind open a tiny bit to the possibility that the sun plays a larger roll in climate than you give it credit for. Read the rest of what I said. I should have known better than to give you a stick to beat me with.
Warm regards,

Jim G says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:44 pmYou were the one quoting cycle 14 in the first place, which “just happened to be” a very cool period.
And one of the largest cycles [#4] http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl4.html just happened to be in a cold period too. My point was [and is] that such random quoting serves little purpose and does little to ‘pry my mind open’ [be careful the brain doesn’t fall out of the your open mind] for solar influence.

@vukcevic
What do you mean by “electro-magnetic feedback”? This sounds to me like reverberation, are you using data from stellar seismology, how are you getting this signal? it may not be what you think it is. but, interestingly enough reverb has well known workable mathematical properties.
It’s a possibility that you maybe detecting our planets this way, I’m not saying that you are only that what you described sounds like an echo.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:57 am
beng says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:23 am
Dr S, the cycle14 graph you linked seems to show an intra-cycling of around 8 months time-period. Just random, or is there some underlying process?
Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.
It’s called ‘precession’ and there is a well-know underlying process. Like I said before (ad nauseum), timing is important, this curve fitting that is being done to guess future sun spot intensity is bizarre, especially when some think the timing properties ” could be random fluctuations of a complex system” and the system we’re discussing is a complex cycle it is a cycle nonetheless and cycles are all about timing.
Leif, I have to say, I enjoy these solar discussions, bouncing ideas of skeptical people is worth more IMO.

What ever happened to Dr. Nicola Scafetta? He has a harmonic theory and is testing it. His predictions appear to be holding up and may be shown to be fairly accurate in the near future. But he’s not in this discussion.

Sparks says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm“Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.”
It’s called ‘precession’ and there is a well-know underlying process.
No, precession is something completely different:
“Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body”
But the sun does not change it orientation of its rotational axis an that [or any other] time scale. We can every day directly see where the axis is.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm
The precession that was raised is between sunspot cycles and the timing of these cycles, the magnetic progression of a solar cycle does in fact have a precession.
Predictions ignore it, being a year or two out with the timing of these cycles and 100% wrong on sunspot intensity, have a guess!

Anthony, is it possible to create a blink comparitor for the progression of cycle predictions with a constant overlay of the actual progression of SC24? It might be interesting to especially the new comers to see the changes over the years from the original (which originally predicted far higher numbers than SC23). It is interesting to me because I’ve been following SC23/24 with great interest, and this is the ultimate object lesson to display the magnitude of how much we do not know of how much we still do not know

Drat… “Somewhere” I saw / linked / saved a ?paper? or report from NASA? which showed a correlation between periods of very low sunspots and cold periods, however they had to lag the temperatures by one solar cycle for the match to show up. (The idea being that ‘something’ in the process had a time delay, not that unlikely, really, a lot of thermal inertial and all).
Now I can’t find it….
At any rate, Leif: In the cases you put forward for a ‘non-match’ of low spot counts and low temperatures (or high spot counts and high temperatures); do they still have a non-match if the lag of one solar cycle is used for the compares? (And does that lag then ‘blow up’ the places that presently do match?) I think you’ve shown that a ‘real time’ cycle match is blown. Can you also demonstrate that a ‘lagged one cycle’ is blown?

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm
………
Hey, nothing as scientifically solid as theory of the ‘Many Ways’, especially when
The ‘Stochastic Noise’ and the ‘Magnetic Quenching’ get together every 100 or so years and then the sun decide ‘Hey I need to slow down’.
Good try, but I don’t buy!
Vukcevic planetary feedback runs as a clockwork, both 105 year and regular cycles.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htmhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Sparks says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm
…………
Feedback circuits are established during solar storms, where there is a direct link between planetary magnetospheres and solar corona. In this illustrationhttp://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
replace ‘Earth’ by Jupiter and you see the idea. Also read US navy’s articlehttp://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html (equally valid for Jupiter/Saturn, see articles on Jupiter and Saturn strong Auroras) or see this NASA animation.

Dave D says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
“It will be our fault, trust me. There’s too much money to be made with calls for disaster.”
I agree that the roots of the CAGW movement won’t just vanish, but I think the main strategy of them may eventually become shifting in emphasis from manmade climate catastrophe claims to other misrepresented environmental scare stories.
Whenever there is major advancement in the capabilities of mankind now or in the future (scale of space launch activities, inexpensive energy generation, etc.), there are sadly huge groups sure to oppose such and do so with dishonest claims.
However, perhaps, in future decades, prior blatantly failed global warming claims can breed more skeptics and more critical thought to a degree, hopefully.
Some of the wind may be taken out of their sails also by the demographic transition. Most commonly published population graphs are misleading, but the annual growth rate of world population dropped from a high above 2% to under 1.2% over the past several decades, while under the most unbiased projections may tend to drop to 0% and then negative by later this century. Some countries have already started decline, Japan being one example. (Some technological scenarios would change that, good overall, but would be way off-topic).
Gail Combs says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:12 am
“Unfortunately they already did the flip from NEW ICE AGE – Global Cooling to CAGW, Global Warming to the all inclusive Climate Change, Extreme Weather.
I already had a very nice Church lady explaining to me how CO2 causes Global Warming And Global Cooling And Extreme Weather. (Eye Roll)
Indeed some people are beyond hope. But one would see change in percentages in polls. The portion of the public believing humans are causing climate catastrophe would never drop to zero but would drop
substantially. Even the extra snowy cold winter of some years back had a major effect seen in polls, whereas serious global cooling (with eventually too much cooling not to notice) would do more. There just has been so much emphasis for decades now on CO2 extreme warming propaganda, so turning their boat around yet again is going to lose them a lot of followers.
The economy would be another topic indeed. Much of the economy was a stack of cards built on implicitly assuming the main living expense (houses) should be such that an used house should always increasingly cost far more than it did when new. Yet having the banking system extra inflate the monetary supply and make house costs rise vastly more than incomes could not be continued forever, as the ratio of the main living expense (house cost) to annual income zoomed up to unprecedented levels. Like a grand pyramid scheme, of people spending money they don’t really have, eventually it crashed. So much is messed up. For instance, college tuition prices actually go up when government assistance (loans) are increased in the manner done today, because colleges can jack up prices far higher while still getting as many customers (students) as ever, not like a normal business where price growth is more moderated by needing to limit it more to not lose customers.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:27 am
“British tomato growers already use computer-controlled heating systems in glasshouses to allow a 9 month growing season in a climate which is marginal for domestic tomato growing and totally uncompetitive commercially in the outdoors.”
That makes sense.
“The interesting question is what year-round production of vegetables means in terms of our global needs for grain crops (maize, wheat and rye).”
Certainly vegetables like tomatoes have been where greenhouse agriculture has been most often
competitive at market prices so far, whereas grains are a different matter. However, while I’m no expert
on agriculture, there are some interesting figures for other crops in http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9849/hydroponics.jpg

I don’t find it at all hard to believe that the solar cycle influences the climate. The solar cycle is also known to influence radioactive decay rates on Earth via a completely unknown mechanism (conjectured to have something to do with neutrino flux). This is a result absolutely nobody would have predicted a couple of years ago.
The Sun, and Science, still has the capacity to surprise us – so long as we retain open minds and don’t assume we already have all the answers.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:11 pmYour use of ‘electro-magnetic’ is misleading. Either say electromagnetic [which is normally used about light] or electric/magnetic. But since what you do is not science, perhaps it does matter what you terminology you prefer.
Electromagnetic: – is clear as in em waves (e.g. from light down to the radio)
electric/magnetic: – could mean either electric or magnetic or both (e.g. force, potential, resistance, circuit, etc all analogues but physically different)
electro-magnetic: – when both electric and magnetic forces are combined in action (e.g. Tesla’s electro-magnetic poly-phase generator is different to a battery which is electro-chemical generator).
What I do is what I consider to be appropriate and it does produce results, call it whatever you wish.

Leif,
To have a polar reversal on the sun, there has to be some activity. So I think it must be possible to link a reversal to the period when a certain level of activity has been reached.
– In March and April 2011, the sunspotnumber in the Northern hemisphere showed a value of about 39 (SIDC). Can we say that the reversal of the magnetic fields of the Northern Pole is triggered by this event and that the reversal happened during this period (March to May 2011)?
– In July 2012, the SSN in the Southern hemisphere showed a value of about 51. The same question can be asked: was this event a trigger to the reversal of the magnetic fields of the Southern Pole that happened at the end of 2012 (October to December 2012)?
I made this graph of the SSN as divided in the two hemispheres: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/North_South2012.gif.
Remark that there were 13 “spotless days” in the Southern hemisphere in December 2012. Of course, January 2013 seems to present another picture.

@Anthony Watts
> ….solar activity in a big slump
>… the peak of solar cycle 24 has been reached
>… we are now past it.
Not so fast, Anthony. I know what you’re trying to do. You have this special power (aka “Watts Effect”), such that whenever you complain about the lack of solar activity, it shoots up. Well, I think it’s working for you again.
The solar flux hit 169 yesterday, and might shoot past the SC24 record 190 sfu observed in Sept 2011 when old sunspot 1633 swings into view again over the Eastern Limb in a day or so.http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm
Though not directly visible, 1633’s activity can been seen on the Nancay radioheliograph, in the 150MHz and 327MHz radio flux spectrum (click on ‘other wavelengths’ to see the UHF image)http://bass2000.obspm.fr/home.php
Also the Learmonth 245MHz flux shot up to 131 this morning at 0500Z. It had been well below 100 for the past 45 days.http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/lists/radio/45day_rad.txt
So the sun is definitely not in a slump. According to Solen, there are currently 15 active regions on the Earth-facing side of the Sun!! (not counting old 1633 waiting in the wings)

http://www.solen.info/solar/
At midnight UTC the visible solar disk had 15 spotted active regions (in 2K resolution SDO images).
Region 11642 [S24W41] was quiet and stable.
Region 11644 [N15W31] was quiet and stable.
Region 11646 [N13W20] decayed slowly and quietly.
Region 11648 [N07W16] was quiet and stable.
Region 11649 [S15E07] was quiet and stable.
Region 11650 [S29E14] decayed slowly and quietly.
Region 11651 [N22W13] reemerged with tiny spots.
Region 11652 [N20E25] developed in the leading spot section and has a small magnetic delta structure in the southern part of the leader spot.
Region 11653 [N08E21] was quiet and stable.
Region 11654 [N08E60] has major flare potential. There are currently no obvious magnetic delta structures. Interestingly both the large leading and trailing penumbrae have narrow interior opposite polarity flux channels.
New region 11655 [S21E03] emerged on January 8 and was numbered by SWPC the next day.
Spotted regions not numbered by SWPC:
New region S2167 [S33E42] emerged with a tiny spot.
New region S2168 [N11E39] emerged with a tiny spot.
New region S2169 [N22E82] rotated into view with small spots.
New region S2170 [S13E01] emerged with several spots.

John Day said:“Also the Learmonth 245MHz flux shot up to 131 this morning at 0500Z.”
That appears to have been a random burst, seems to be back to normal now:http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/3/5” According to Solen, there are currently 15 active regions on the Earth-facing side of the Sun!!”
Yes, the joint is jumpin’. Magnetically speaking. But the visible spots appear small and subdued.
Could that be due to the L&P effect?

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:09 pm
And one of the largest cycles [#4] http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl4.html just happened to be in a cold period too. My point was [and is] that such random quoting serves little purpose and does little to ‘pry my mind open’ [be careful the brain doesn’t fall out of the your open mind] for solar influence.
My point was, and is, that combinations of potential causal variables, such as those I mentioned (and you ignored) many of which cannot be tracked even as “well” (or poorly) historically as sun cycles, could derail the correlations between temps and sun cycles on a time line basis. Like Archimedes, however, even if I had a lever long enough to pry your mind open, there would be no place left to stand.

Jim G says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm
………….
My calculations show that intensity of a cycle is not only critical factor, it is phase of the solar magnetic field at the time that is also important, if it is in phase with the ‘undulations’ of the Earth’s magnetic field than there is a warm period, and vice versa. Intensity of the cycle than determines the extent of the warming or cooling.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

@Steve Mosher: you wrote: “actually, it was predicted. Here is a hint. Global warming is not homogenuous ( some places cool, but more places warm) and its not monotonic– you will have cool periods, but long term trends are positive.”
So, tell us; What is a long term trend? And when did the long term trend start? Did it start before CO2 started its rise? Be honest, not defensive. Did it ever warm before in recent history before the CO2 trend inclined?
It was said that according to AGW theory that it was not possible for the warming trend to stop for 12, then 15 years. We’ve passed that. So, be a scientists, and tell us what the real number of years is trend to resume warming? Your people do not seem adroit at predicting anything other than everything.
Don’t forget that your people say that 90% of all of the warming for 30 years is due to CO2. The whole theory was based on correlation… period. That’s not science Mr. Mosher. If I used that type of science in process control, I’d not have a job. What I do must in fact work and be repeatable.

meemoe_uk says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:51 amHe won’t even look at the electric universe theory. … I rest my case.
On the contrary, I have looked carefully at the EU ‘theory’ but found it severely wanting [if not out-right nonsense], so I don’t think you have a case…
O rly?
So how come that over the last few years you’ve been able to contribute so much to discussion at WUWT and solarham.com , mostly setting people straight with their daft ideas, but so far I haven’t seen you doing the same thing with EU theory?
Your best refutation you’ve managed over the last 20 years that i’ve seen has been the above flat dismissing comment.
What’s the sly trick of logic and reason you use to dismiss EU which alluded physics nobel prize winner and EU contributor Hannes Alven his entire life? Is your above comment it?
I think you have absent mindedly joined the choir boys who spent 100 years singing about how birkeland was wrong back in 1913 about aurora being due to electric current in space. Effectively they ( and you ) are still singing today about birkeland being wrong, even though a probe went up in 1966 to check for such electro-magnetic influence in space and confirmed it ( the solar wind ). They never fully accept birkland’s broader hypothesis, and just minimally celotaped his correct prediction onto the side of the establishment’s pet theorys.

Johanus says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:35 amBut the visible spots appear small and subdued.
Could that be due to the L&P effect?
That would be a good guess. Now, there are some big spots too. The L&P effect is more about that the small spots disappear [or don’t form in the first place] and the sunspot number is dominated by the small spots: a normal large group may have two big spots and a hundred little ones. The latter are what seem to disappear.
Jim G says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:24 pmMy point was, and is, that combinations of potential causal variables, such as those I mentioned (and you ignored)
I never ‘ignore’ anything. If I don’t mention or respond to something it is because I consider them not significant enough to be discussed at the current phase of the exchange.many of which cannot be tracked even as “well” (or poorly) historically as sun cycles, could derail the correlations between temps and sun cycles on a time line basis.
‘could’ is very different from ‘would’. If you fervently believe in Sun-Weather-Climate relations depending on or driven by all those, small, potential variables, then it is up to you to quantity how much each of them contributes. If you can’t, then it is just wishful hand-wavingLike Archimedes, however, even if I had a lever long enough to pry your mind open, there would be no place left to stand.
Like the Chinese proverb says: “mind is like parachute, works best when open”.
The openness required here is the willingness to admit being wrong.
In the discussion about scientists and open mind, the proper formulation is that by Louis Pasteur “Fortune favors the prepared mind”.
vukcevic says:
January 10, 2013 at 2:56 pmif it is in phase with the ‘undulations’ of the Earth’s magnetic field than there is a warm period, and vice versa.
Pure cyclomania and a blot on WUWT.
meemoe_uk says:
January 10, 2013 at 7:46 pmWhat’s the sly trick of logic and reason you use to dismiss EU which alluded physics nobel prize winner and EU contributor Hannes Alven his entire life? Is your above comment it?
Hannes Alfven was a good friend of mine and he would rotate in his grave by being associated with EU.how birkeland was wrong back in 1913 about aurora being due to electric current in space.
He was partly wrong on this. The aurora is due to electric currents in the near-Earth’s environment. Birkeland claimed [as EU does today] that large electric currents [or streams of electric charges] were coming from the Sun to hit the Earth. That he was wrong on this was shown already by Lindemann in 1919 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemann-1919.pdf ]. The solar wind is electrically neutral to a very high degree, containing equal and positive charges. If the solar wind would have an excess of one charge over the other, the sun would build up an an enormous amount of the other charge, and very strong electric attraction between opposite charges would prevent any further solar wind from escaping the Sun.
But here is not the place to talk about EU. We have already done that on WUWT more than the subject is worth. But you may get a different perspective by consulting http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html or here http://www.crankastronomy.org/
You may also consult a lecture I gave at NASA in 1973: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
Perhaps look at Figure 15 to see what we today call Birkeland Currents.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 10, 2013 at 9:00 pmPure cyclomania
Named by man arranged by nature:
Day & night ; Summer – Winter ; Kyr BC – 2013 AD
Calculated by a man arranged by nature:
Sunspot magnetic cycle and Earth’s magnetic field combinedhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Solar magnetic field which continuously impacts the Earth’s surface induces electric currents, so it does the Earth’s magnetic field in the any moving conductor (e.g. ocean currents).
Combining such electric currents (via their generating force i.e. magnetic fields) is an anathema to Dr. Svalgaard, but when solar electromagnetic radiation (daylight) is combined with the street light, or the TSI with the heat from burning fuel that is fine.
He could claim that such combination of electric currents has negligible effect, due to intensity, frequency or phase, but dismissing such currents as non-existent it is demonstrably false.

vukcevic says:
January 11, 2013 at 2:23 amHe could claim that such combination of electric currents has negligible effect, due to intensity, frequency or phase, but dismissing such currents as non-existent it is demonstrably false.
You are barking up the wrong tree. As I have shown you, such currents are small, have negligible effect, and are transient.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 6:47 amAs I have shown you, such currents are small, have negligible effect, and are transient.
Now you are talking as a scientist should. The effect we know of, may be negligible, but that should not preclude further investigation. The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is also negligible but the ‘consensus’ is that the ‘effect is disproportionately great’.You are barking up the wrong tree.
You lapse again, but using your analogy there are more trees in this forest.
Strength of the magnetosphere is determined mainly by two factors (but do expand if you wish): strength of the Earth’s dynamo and strength of the heliospheric mf at the E’s orbit.
Since Jackson-Bloxham data does contain those periods, and I can not envisage any deliberate adjustments either by them, and certainly not by myself, than it does appear that dynamo has regular fluctuations, which would be ‘transferred’ to magnetopause, GCR flux, etc.
I am more than happy to take seriously and fully consider your points on the matter of science detail, for which I have great deal of respect, but outbursts such as “cyclomania, spurious, made-up data, fr**d, Denning-Kruger” etc, do not have any traction with me, and do undermine strength of your argument, the effect is exactly opposite to what you intended.

vukcevic says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:55 amI am more than happy to take seriously and fully consider your points on the matter of science detail
You have been unwilling and unable to do so in the past and as far as I can see are totally impervious to learning and education.do not have any traction with me, and do undermine strength of your argument, the effect is exactly opposite to what you intended.
I don’t think any arguments will have traction with you. I have tried hard, but to no avail.
The ‘spurious’, ‘DK-effect’, etc are my best assessment of you and your ‘work’. In keeping with the DK-effect, you may chose to disregard this, but that only underscores my point.
Your ideas are nonsense and pseudo-science.

Leif Svalgaard says:
“If you fervently believe in Sun-Weather-Climate relations depending on or driven by all those, small, potential variables,”
I do not “fervently believe” in much of anything in the realm of science, but keep my mind open to alternative possibilities, even when they are not a part of the concensus views of the time. Fervent belief is for religous concepts which are faith based in any event. Perhaps you should keep this in mind. Also, I do not consider oceanic cycles and their changes, just one of those to which I referred, as “small” variables in the scheme of weather or climate.

Dr.S. Let’s stick to the science.
On page 13 of my article is the link to the source of the data, where I described how dF(t) is calculated, and then the spectral components found. The above can be repeated in less than 5 min.
When you quote what spectral components you have found, I am happy to continue, else you wish to suppress what is in the data, for reasons known to yourself, but may be only guessed by the rest.

Jim G says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:51 amAlso, I do not consider oceanic cycles and their changes, just one of those to which I referred, as “small” variables in the scheme of weather or climate.
If you are not specific your claims cannot be evaluated.
vukcevic says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:55 am Let’s stick to the science.
what you do is not science.When you quote what spectral components you have found, I am happy to continue, else you wish to suppress what is in the data, for reasons known to yourself, but may be only guessed by the rest.
We have discussed this before. There is not enough data on which to base your analysis for the locations you use.Strength of the magnetosphere is determined mainly by two factors (but do expand if you wish): strength of the Earth’s dynamo and strength of the heliospheric mf at the E’s orbit.
The strength of the heliospheric magnetic field does not have the cycle you peddle:http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-FFT.png
So end of that discussion.

Does anyone know a web site that gives the temperatures in Greenland where they take the ice cores? When the temperature goes 20 degrees C lower we will know the ice age is here. They are going to depopulate the earth anyway. And I seem to be everyones favorite so I’ll go first.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm
…………..So end of that discussion.
Oh, no it is not.
Aa index clearly picks up 16 year, and Ap 22 year componentshttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Specs.gif
I don’t have your HMF B data, how is measured, not one of your products?
I would like to take a look at it myself.

Hannes Alfven was a good friend of mine and he would rotate in his grave by being associated with EU.
Don’t think so, he prefered it to the big bang model, which he likened to creationism.He was partly wrong on this. The aurora is due to electric currents in the near-Earth’s environment.
Yes I know how it works, and birkland got it broadly correct at the time. After 50 years of dismissing his idea, and then seeing he was correct, the establishment contented itself by saying he was wrong by picking holes in the detail once the key predictions had been confirmed.The solar wind is electrically neutral to a very high degree
Or in other words, it is not neutral, it has a small electrical charge. Further, this small charge is not due to some minor , insignificant technicality, it’s an effect of the sun being primarily electrical in function and nature.
In fact the solar wind is all any layperson needs to confound even the best read non-electrical- sun believers like yourself. The solar wind accelerates away from the sun because the sun is electrically charged, creating an heliocentric electric field, which accelerates the charged solar wind away from the sun. Using an electric model of the sun, George Fitzgerald predicted this back in the 19th century! The establishment ignored his solar wind idea. When the solar wind was confirmed in 1959, they still ignored Fitzgerald’s prediction.To this day, non-electric sun believers conjure up mad, radical complicated mathematical models to explain the acceleration of the solar wind, and then use emperor’s new cloths arguments against those who don’t like their mad models and simply use high-school level electrostatics. No such mad maths theory has gained general acceptance, and the problem is consider unsolved by the establishment. Occam’s razor is violated to sustain establishment solar theory. Alfven wrote a paper in 1970 to explain what was happening which essentially repeated what Fitzgerald said 100 years earlier – the sun is charged and so is the solar wind. The establishment ignored Alfven’s paper.If the solar wind would have an excess of one charge over the other, the sun would build up an an enormous amount of the other charge, and very strong electric attraction between opposite charges would prevent any further solar wind from escaping the Sun.
A naive person contemplating a live DC electric wire might wonder the same point…” isnt a tremendous electrical charge building up at the other end of this wire that supplies all this charge? ”
The problem is resolved when you consider the electric circuit. The sun has an electric circuit too. Charge goes in at the poles of the sun and comes out everywhere else but more around the equator. Didn’t Alfven draw us a nice diagram of the solar circuit and also one for galaxies? maybe you wouldn’t know because the establishment mostly ignored his application of electrical theory to space science.But here is not the place to talk about EU. We have already done that on WUWT more than the subject is worth
Isn’t it?
You’d rather spend another 5 years telling vukcevic he’s wrong. Good for you. Thats what you’ve spent most of your last 5 years on WUWT and solarham.com doing.

vukcevic says:
January 11, 2013 at 5:10 pmAa index clearly picks up 16 year, and Ap 22 year components
As aa and ap measure exactly the same thing, their spectra should be identical. If they are not, you pick up spurious noise.I don’t have your HMF B data, how is measured, not one of your products?
I would like to take a look at it myself.
Of course it is one of mine. You can learn about it here:http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf building on an earlier paperhttp://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
meemoe_uk says:
January 11, 2013 at 7:39 pmDon’t think so, he preferred it to the big bang model
You are regurgitating a myth. And, BTW, most people did that until the Cosmic Microwave Radiation changed all that.Yes I know how it works, and Birkeland got it broadly correct at the time.
He was very wrong the first time, thinking that the electric current came from the Sun. It doesn’t.
That there are electric currents generated in the upper atmosphere was clear already in the 1889s, and was not original with Birkeland.The solar wind is electrically neutral to a very high degree
Or in other words, it is not neutral, it has a small electrical charge.
The deviations from strict neutrality are local and fluctuating over small distances.The solar wind accelerates away from the sun because the sun is electrically charged, creating an heliocentric electric field, which accelerates the charged solar wind away from the sun.
Of course not. That is 19th century misconception as you so proudly agree with: “George Fitzgerald predicted this back in the 19th century”The problem is resolved when you consider the electric circuit. The sun has an electric circuit too. Charge goes in at the poles of the sun and comes out everywhere else but more around the equator. Didn’t Alfven draw us a nice diagram of the solar circuit and also one for galaxies?
Alfven’s diagram is very wrong. And as I told you, he was a good and personal friend of mine and we have often discussed this.“But here is not the place to talk about EU. We have already done that on WUWT more than the subject is worth” Isn’t it?
No, it isn’t. Go to http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html and educate yourself.You’d rather spend another 5 years telling vukcevic he’s wrong.
Vuk is a particular sad case of a learning disability which is beyond hope. I hope for you that you do not have a similar affliction.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:28 pm
……
Yes, you are correct, I was using Aa (raw 1860) data and Ap (1845), there is a small discrepancy due to possibly more uncertainty with the earlier data. Since the Earth data only goes to 1990, I have re-plotted Earth and Ap and their spectra as shown in here:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Specs.htm
Note the time axis displacement between the Ap and the Earth.
Your paper doesn’t mention Ap index, I would expect your HMF-B data to correlate with Ap index. I shall look into it.

vukcevic says:
January 12, 2013 at 5:04 amYour paper doesn’t mention Ap index, I would expect your HMF-B data to correlate with Ap index. I shall look into it.
It doesn’t mention Ap because the heliospheric magnetic field B is not the main variable that determines Ap. Ap is mostly determined by the solar wind speed V. The following relationship exists: Ap ~ BV^2. Furthermore Ap is a poor index for global geomagnetic activity as Ap is almost exclusively derived from Northern Hemisphere data [for historical reasons].

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 12, 2013 at 7:27 am should use all the data, not cherry-pick selected intervals.
No, I don’t agree, solar cycles periods vary in length, so if the Ap and the Earth magnetic field are related than spectrum should be calculated only for the common period where data is available for both (the Earth data is available only to 1990).
100 year period is more than sufficient to establish periods below 25 years of length.
If you don’t like the result then your theory is a bit shaky (as is your spectrum analyser)
You will find that Ap ~ 3.1*(HMF B)-6 is a very good match.
BTW. Tnx for previous remarks regarding spectrum, the new result is more convincing.
Svalgaard Spectrum: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-FFT.png
Vukcevic spectrum: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Specs.htm

vukcevic says:
January 12, 2013 at 8:38 amNo, I don’t agree, solar cycles periods vary in length, so if the Ap and the Earth magnetic field are related than spectrum should be calculated only for the common period where data is available for both
You start Earth in 1860 and the other ones in 1880…
Plus you shift the data by 8 years. Lots of massaging going on the arrive at the desired result…You will find that Ap ~ 3.1*(HMF B)-6 is a very good match.
No, that is wiggle matching. Ap is dominated by solar wind speed and not B.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Jim G says:
January 11, 2013 at 11:51 am
Also, I do not consider oceanic cycles and their changes, just one of those to which I referred, as “small” variables in the scheme of weather or climate.
“If you are not specific your claims cannot be evaluated.”
Have you never heard of the north/south ocean conveyor or El Niño or La Niña ?

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 12, 2013 at 10:06 am
Jim G says:
January 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
“Have you never heard of the north/south ocean conveyor or El Niño or La Niña ?
none of which are driven by solar activity.”
I never said they were, though there are those who would disagree with you on that. What I said was that they, among other variables, could mitigate any time line comparisons between temperature and solar cycles causing the lack of correlation you pointed out for solar cycle 24 and temperature compared to solar cycle 14 and temperature.

Jim G says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:16 pmthey, among other variables, could mitigate any time line comparisons
‘could’? first show that they actually do. You make the assumption that there MUST be a causal connection, and anything that comes in the way of showing that ‘could’ be due to mitigating effects that louse up the comparisons.

HenryP says:
January 12, 2013 at 2:01 pmInteresting. It seems to me the observed cycle as determined by me from the odd 650000 daily data (MAXIMA) is indeed 88 years […]
Either way, it seems to lead to a clear 80 – 100 year weather cycle
But since there is no corresponding solar cycle, whatever you claim is not due to the sun, obviously.I am happy you agree with me that there is more going on than what you claimed in your earlier posts.
Of course not, see just above.Hence we are cooling, while ozone and other are increasing.
Ozone is increasing because we are not putting out more CF gases.

Leif says
Either way, it seems to lead to a clear 80 – 100 year weather cycle
But since there is no corresponding solar cycle, whatever you claim is not due to the sun, obviously.
Henry says
But I already showed you that it does exist and you agreed?
It is the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, 1003, 15 PP., 2003
doi:10.1029/2002JA009390
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Alexei N. Peristykh
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Paul E. Damon
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar–terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar–terrestrial,and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar–terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—
etc.
Since you are not a chemist but a solar specialist I think it is rather pointless for me going to show you all the chemistry that would proof that the amount of CFC’s or CFHC’s is so small as to have little effect on the ozone; it is indeed very small compared to the natural processes where by chlorine is produced under UV at TOA.
As I said before there is more going on TOA as what you all think. Hence we are cooling. Until 2039, unless you can make a better fit for my data:http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-217
what fit would you propose?

HenryP says:
January 12, 2013 at 3:31 pmPersistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
There is, indeed, such a cycle when considering those very long time scales, but that is irrelevant when discussing climate change the last 300 years, during which the Gleissberg cycle has been 105 years long, not 88 years.Since you are not a chemist but a solar specialist I think it is rather pointless for me going to show you all the chemistry that would proof that the amount of CFC’s or CFHC’s is so small as to have little effect on the ozone; it is indeed very small compared to the natural processes where by chlorine is produced under UV at TOA.
Here is what my daughter-in-law who is our resident ozone expert has to say [in peer-reviewed, invited, 2006 paper in Nature magazine]: “By the end of the 21st century, provided the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances decrease, ozone levels are expected to be dominated by temperature, atmospheric dynamics and the abundances of trace gases, including water vapour, methane and N2O. For example, future growth in N2O, due in part to increased fertilizer production, could lead to decreases in ozone.”
She does believe that the effect of the Montreal Protocol is uncertain and probably much smaller or irrelevant now that we have stopped putting CFCs up there.what fit would you propose?
curve fitting to non-existent cycle has no predictive power.

leif says
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
There is, indeed, such a cycle when considering those very long time scales,
……..curve fitting to non-existent cycle has no predictive power.
henry says
translation: 1) it exists 2) it does not exist

henry says
whatever fit you use (for my data) , it will show the root – where warming decelerated to 0.000K/annum, and cooling started as having occurred in 1995. This simple fact is a natural conclusion from the data. Remember : this is energy-in (maxima). Means may lag a few years. Earth max.energy out apparently occurred in 1998.
Ozone started increasing in 1995, as noted both from measurements in the NH and SH.
The best fit I get for the curve going back in time where I have no reliable data (before 1974) is a sine wave, wavelength 88 years, with the same root – where cooling stopped and warming started as having occurred somewhere in 1951. Around the same time ozone was found starting to decline.
Ozone is not the only compound back radiating a substantial amount of sunlight;
It seems Trenberth et al did not even know this. I doubt if you daughter-in-law knows.
Let us do a multiple choice question for Leif
If you add 1 + 1 , what do you get?
which is the correct answer
a) 0
b) 1
c) 2
Do your best!
*the answer is 2

HenryP says:
January 12, 2013 at 9:30 pmtranslation: 1) it exists 2) it does not exist
Since there has been no solar variation with a 88 year period the last 300 years, whatever you think you find is not related to the Sun. So, 2) is your choice.

HenryP says:
January 12, 2013 at 11:03 pmI did find some complete reasonably reliable data going back to 1942 from one station, in Anchorage, which confirmed that my fit is correct.
Is that the only station [among hundreds] that you could find supporting your fit?
If so, that is called confirmation bias.

here is the problem:
you get stations with some records going back in time but then there are big gaps, e.g.http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Reykjavik/40300.htm
which is pretty useless
you have to find a station with no gaps back to 1942
it is not so easy.

HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 11:27 amthe data you provide is not in a presentable form.
It is trivial to turn the data into any [better] format you wish.
HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 11:35 amyou get stations with some records going back in time but then there are big gaps, e.g.http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Reykjavik/40300.htm
which is pretty useless
Gaps are not a real problem.The data can still be fitted to any curve like desire. And of the 417 stations with records longer than 100 years there are very many with no gaps.you have to find a station with no gaps back to 1942
No, you have to find such stations or show that aren’t any..

the gaps at 2002 and 2005 in Anchorage are due to one single month’s missing data, namely may and november
which can be estimated by taking the average of may’s 2002 ‘s 16 available days of data and november 2005 is estimated by taking the november 2004 and november 2006 results divided by two.
In the case of Reykjavik you do not have records for many years, period.
You cannot do a fit with that.
rubbish in= rubbish out

HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 12:51 pmIn the case of Reykjavik you do not have records for many years […] You cannot do a fit with that.
Of course one can. It is easy. But why get stuck on Reykavik? There are hundreds of other stations with more than 100 years of data [as I showed you].

Anyway, never mind my high standards of finding COMPLETE daily data
I am not the only one who came to the same conclusion
here is a paper relevant to our discussion here,http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4630
I quote
5. Conclusion
LL demonstrates that the 20th century’s global warming was predominantly a natural 100-year fluctuation. The leftovers are caused by UHI, the warming effect by increasing station elevation, changes to the screens and their environments in the 1970s, variations in the sun’s magnetic field that could influence the amount of clouds, warming caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2, and further unknown effects. However, the station density over the Earth is strongly irregular, which makes any global record but also the results given by LL disputable. The SH stations of the GISS data pool show less warming (resp. stronger cooling) than the NH ones. Since the available stations worldwide are concentrated in the NH, the real mean of the 20th century warming could be even somewhat smaller than LL have evaluated.
end quote
Henry@Leif
do you see now agree that there is a 80-100 year cycle, causing (most) of the observed warming?

HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:13 pmAnyway, never mind my high standards of finding COMPLETE daily data
As you have not examined many stations you do not have a high standard. It is rather low,actually.LL demonstrates that the 20th century’s global warming was predominantly a natural 100-year fluctuation.
So, no 80 or 88-yr cycle. Try to fit your ‘data’ to a 100-yr sine curve,then.

Leif says
As you have not examined many stations you do not have a high standard. It is rather low,actually.
Henry says
You could not even produce one station with complete daily data, for me, with only one or two months missing daily data.
Remember that I have done a fit from all measurements of maxima obtained from 47 weather stations selected randomly but balanced by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland (longitude does not matter as earth turns every 24 hours and the seasonal shift in earth’s axis does not matter either if you look at yearly average temperature results). By looking at a disproportional amount of NH stations versus SH, LL is biased.
The summary of all my results is that the speed of warming/cooling for maxima in degrees C/ annum now is: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
If you try a binomial plot (parabolic) with these particular data you get very high correlation (0.998) but it would mean tremendous cooling rates in the decades ahead, such as we have not seen before.
If you can come up with any other plot for the above data that would be better or just as good as the sine wave with 88 years wave length, be my guest.
I would appreciate your help.
As to your question about the difference in lengths between LL and me, (100 vs 88) remember that I have been looking at maxima (energy-in) whereas LL is looking at means (energy-out)
obviously there must be quite some lag?

HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:34 pmYou could not even produce one station with complete daily data, for me, with only one or two months missing daily data.
It is for you to examine the data, since you are making the claims. So, you better start now [many hundreds to examine – so no time to waste]I would appreciate your help.
I have helped you a lot by finding hundreds of stations with very long records. So, now you can go and do something useful with them.

HenryP says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:54 pmclearly you have no understanding of stats + my standards.
Enough to understand that when presented with the opportunity to examine orders of magnitudes more data you refuse [afraid of what you might fine?].Anyway, I am glad you now agree with me that there is a natural 80-100 year cycle, causing (most) of the observed warming.
there are lots of natural variations [most people prefer a 60-yr cycle], but there is no 80-100-yr cycle in warming. We have now quite different [higher] temperatures than 100 years ago. You claim an almost perfect fit [0.998] with your 88-yr curve. See if also get that with the 100 year curve you claimed LL found..

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Jim G says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:16 pm
they, among other variables, could mitigate any time line comparisons
“‘could’? first show that they actually do. You make the assumption that there MUST be a causal connection, and anything that comes in the way of showing that ‘could’ be due to mitigating effects that louse up the comparisons.”
You are the one making bold statements of no climatic effects due to solar cycles regarding periods of time where the other variables are unknown, not I. You state your hypotheses as facts, not I. I just keep my mind open to other possibilities in the face of lack of availability of reliable observational data. Skeptical science vs consensus science.

Jim G says:
January 14, 2013 at 9:48 amYou are the one making bold statements of no climatic effects due to solar cycles regarding periods of time where the other variables are unknown, not I.
Not quite correct. I’m saying that the Sun has not varied as much as people would like to think.You state your hypotheses as facts, not I. I just keep my mind open to other possibilities in the face of lack of availability of reliable observational data.
If there is no reliable data, there is nothing to fill your open mind.Skeptical science vs consensus science.
In this game, consensus science is the notion that the Sun has varied enough to cause climate change [e.g. between 1700 and 1975]. Skeptical science is my view that the Sun has not. Which of those two camps are you in?

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Skeptical science vs consensus science.
In this game, consensus science is the notion that the Sun has varied enough to cause climate change [e.g. between 1700 and 1975]. Skeptical science is my view that the Sun has not. Which of those two camps are you in?”
By definition, being an open minded skeptic, I will join neither “camp” and look at both as hypotheses and neither as fact until more reliable observational data is available. Just like with dark matter. I do have a “gut feel” on issues but do not state them as fact and find the certainty that many “scientists” indicate in their statements regrettable to the advancement of real science.

Jim G says:
January 14, 2013 at 11:35 amBy definition, being an open minded skeptic, I will join neither “camp” and look at both as hypotheses and neither as fact until more reliable observational data is available.
In science almost everything is preliminary and subject to revision. It is always a judgement call what ‘reliable’ is. The solar data is judged [by me, based on my knowledge of them] to reliable enough the draw the conclusions I have drawn. The climate data is a bit less reliable, but we have to go by what we have. Scientists may not always state the uncertainties because it becomes cumbersome to always have to say ‘that everything is preliminary and subject to revision’ after every statement ever made. The uncertainty is always implicitly understood.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 14, 2013 at 11:57 am
Jim G says:
January 14, 2013 at 11:35 am
By definition, being an open minded skeptic, I will join neither “camp” and look at both as hypotheses and neither as fact until more reliable observational data is available.
“In science almost everything is preliminary and subject to revision. It is always a judgement call what ‘reliable’ is. The solar data is judged [by me, based on my knowledge of them] to reliable enough the draw the conclusions I have drawn. The climate data is a bit less reliable, but we have to go by what we have. Scientists may not always state the uncertainties because it becomes cumbersome to always have to say ‘that everything is preliminary and subject to revision’ after every statement ever made. The uncertainty is always implicitly understood.”
Well said! The problem is mostly with popular publications that state hypothetical as fact for the consumption of the general public I wrote up the following before you even responded above:
My gut feeling on your hypothesis regarding the historical variability of the sun is that it is probably fairly accurate, however, your hypothesis on its effect upon climate, not so much, as there are too many unknown exogenous variables that cannot even be estimated well historically. As far as dark matter, my gut feel is that there is plenty of baryonic dark matter out there, possibly way more than is currently estimated but I will await further proof of the existence of the nonbaryonic dark matter, particularly in the quantities currently popularly hypothesized as well as keep my mind open to possible finer tuning of how gravity operates on the grand scale of the universe.

Jim G says:
January 14, 2013 at 12:08 pmMy gut feeling on your hypothesis regarding the historical variability of the sun is that it is probably fairly accurate, however, your hypothesis on its effect upon climate, not so much, as there are too many unknown exogenous variables that cannot even be estimated well historically.
That applies as well to the notion that the Sun is the major driver. What you are saying is that there are too many things in play, so we cannot honestly blare the ‘it is the Sun, Stupid’ mantra.As far as dark matter, my gut feel is that there is plenty of baryonic dark matter out there, possibly way more than is currently estimated but I will await further proof of the existence of the nonbaryonic dark matter, particularly in the quantities currently popularly hypothesized as well as keep my mind open to possible finer tuning of how gravity operates on the grand scale of the universe.
Getting of topic now, but http://www,leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf may show you that we don’t need quantum gravity for this. Freshman physics will do just fine.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Your link brought me to some advertising for ladies shoes among othe things. Here is one that worked for me.
[PDF]
Cosmic sound waves rulesdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
Baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), are one of the variables that seem to indicate that the universe is infinite in size, not just unbounded, as present big ang theory indicates, but infinite in the mass and energy it contains. The implication is that it is also infinite in time as well. This would mean that any “big bang” was not the beginning of the universe but a “local event” with significant implications for many present day theories. Bob Berman, an Astronomy Magazine contibutor, did a very interesting article on this a few months ago. One of the many implications of this, if it is correct, is that either an infinite number of things will happen (have happened) or a finite number of things will happen (have happened) an infinite number of times. Also, “local” rules of physics may not rule in other parts of an infinite universe. I don’t know about you, but I am finding it difficult to wrap my “open mind” around this one, but it may be the ultimate skeptics journey.

Jim G says:
January 14, 2013 at 3:30 pmindicate that the universe is infinite in size, not just unbounded, as present big bang theory indicates, but infinite in the mass and energy it contains.
I don’t think the sounds waves indicate that, but I have not problem with an infinite Universe, or even with infinitely many universes. Big Big theory does not indicate otherwise.The implication is that it is also infinite in time as well.
This is not implicated. Time could be generated at the BB itself. But I have no problem with a ‘time’ before the BB.Also, “local” rules of physics may not rule in other parts of an infinite universe.
As far as we can tell they rule in the Universe we observe and that is good enough for us [for me at least].I don’t know about you, but I am finding it difficult to wrap my “open mind” around this one, but it may be the ultimate skeptics journey.
Perhaps it is not open enough?
But, in any event, no open mind is needed, just simple physics and modern high-precision observations.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Perhaps your mind is more open, at least at times, than is indicated by many of your responses. Don’t let it snap shut. If you have the time, read the Berman article. He interviewed some interesting people for the column. Have a good day!

Jim G says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:02 amPerhaps your mind is more open, at least at times, than is indicated by many of your responses.
The responses have nothing to do with open/closed mind, but with healthy skepticism.read the Berman article.
I don’t have a subscription, but it has long been evident that the Universe is not closed [thus not finite]. The very same evidence that forces Dark Matter on us shows that ‘Omega’ is unity. ‘Omega’ is the ratio of the actual density to the ‘critical’ density, that determines if the Universe is closed [finite but unbounded] or open [infinite].

Leif,
Here’s my try at a cut and paste of the article:
Infinite universe
November 2012: Recent studies indicate that we can’t see even a small piece of the cosmos
By Bob Berman — Published: September 24, 2012
When a sample size is zero, no conclusions are trustworthy.
The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite.
This is no small piece of news. The implications are enormous.
First, though, how do we know? How could we know? It actually has been creeping up on us since the 1990s. Many separate areas of investigation — like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type Ia supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, and the flat topology of space — all point the same way.

I spoke with Shirley Ho earlier this year. She’s part of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory team that just studied 900,000 galaxies to give us the best-ever view of cosmic large-scale structure.

“Our results support an infinite universe,” she says.
It’s a huge change from the prevailing model of a finite but unbounded cosmos, with a specific quantity of matter and energy but no walls. In the old model, curved space would let a seemingly straight-traveling astronaut zoom past a galaxy a second time, maybe 200 billion years later. But infinity changes things. It means space never ends. It’s a matrix of limitless galaxies, stars, planets, and energy.

California Institute of Technology theoretical physicist Sean Carroll cautiously noted last spring that while a finite universe would be provable, scientists can never prove infinity. Nonetheless, given the current data, he feels the universe “probably is infinite.”
If so, he adds, “then either an infinite number of different things happen or a finite number of things happen an infinite number of times. Either possibility is pretty mind-boggling.”

It means the Big Bang was probably just a local event, a big to-do in the ’hood, confined to only the observable universe. As for the larger universe beyond, if there were a birth, says University of Chicago cosmologist Rocky Kolb, it would have “started out everywhere at once, as infinite from the beginning.”
This doesn’t bother everyone. Last April, Debra Elmegreen, then president of the American Astronomical Society, shrugged it off: “Even if we can only observe a very small fraction of the universe, that’s plenty to keep us busy.”
But she slightly misspoke. It’s not a very small percentage that’s observable. You see, any fraction of infinity is essentially zero. It means we cannot see even a few paintbrush strokes of the celestial masterwork. All we can ever hope to study is 0 percent.
Says State University of New York physics professor Tarun Biswas, “All scientific theories are models of nature based on observation. The problem with cosmology is that its current model is based on almost negligible observational data. It would still not be a problem if people did not take it so seriously.”

Take the idea that everything started from nothingness — that the positive attractive force of all mass and gravity is balanced by the negative repulsiveness of dark energy. The plus and minus cancel out. This universe is zilch.
Is this valid reasoning or technobabble? In my opinion, you can’t get something from true nothingness. Moreover, calling things positive and negative and then saying they cancel into blankness doesn’t mean they are actually positive or negative except as mental classifications.
You want the truth? No one knows how the universe materialized or if it even had a birth. The Big Bang’s zero moment remains an utter enigma. Indeed, many such speculations produce eye rolls from physicists like Biswas who believe some shred of observational evidence still has a place in science.

In any case, current ideas about the Big Bang don’t carry us beyond square one because no one knows anything about the infinite universe from which it arose. We can only guess about the larger cosmos. Will its assumed homogeneity someday be replaced by vast neighborhoods ruled by separate physical laws? It’s far too soon to say. But it’s not too soon to start telling kids that the galaxies and stars probably go on and on without end. And, yes, no one can picture this.
Astronomy has become a dichotomy. On the one hand, we have facts like the martian rotation period of 24h, 37m, 23s that are rock solid. We know how the stars shine. It’s an exciting time. But bedrock cosmology issues — Was the universe born? What’s its size? What’s it really made of? — remain enigmas. Worse, an infinite universe means that these basics may be unknowable.
Elmegreen might be content with her 200 billion galaxies. And sure, this playground is vast. It’ll definitely keep us busy. But, face it, our intellects hate blank spaces, especially when they’re enormous. An unknown infinite cosmos isn’t a comfortable development.
The good news? You won’t be reminded about it. Most astronomers will ignore infinity. They’ll focus on the observable portion, the 0 percent that is ours to explore. What else can they do?
So I’ll calm down. I won’t keep bringing this up. I’m just going through some sort of celestial Kübler-Ross grief stage, and hopefully I’m on my way to acceptance

Jim G says:
January 15, 2013 at 12:23 pmHere’s my try at a cut and paste of the article
Thank you for the effort. But the infinite Universe is actually old news. The crucial data is the value of Omega [which is unity for an open, infinite Universe]. It is actually that value that shows us that Dark Matter and Dark energy together make up 95% of our universe. The 5% baryons being fixed by the acoustic peaks. If there were no DM+DE then Omega would be 0.05 and the Universe would be closed and finite.

Leif Svalgaard says:
“But the infinite Universe is actually old news.”
Actually, it is still pretty flimsy theory, not news, the term “news” would give it more the weight of fact. But I find it very interesting theory. Much of what you put great weight upon is descriptive terminology needed to describe mathematical constructs which are used to describe observed effects. When the observations change new constructs are needed. Advances in technology continually result in new observations which do not completely agree with old observations and new contructs are needed. Keep that mind open.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Yes I did go to your link, and ,yes, I have seen it all before, and no, unbounded is not the same as infinite in mass and energy, flimsy because like the article says, if truly infinite, any sample of infinity is still a zero % sample upon which to base anything, Thought you said “I don’t think the sounds waves indicate that” then you say it’s “old news”. ?? Also, most who are conjecturing on this, which is all that can really be done, feel that if infinite in size, mass and energy means it also had no beginning (as in a big bang) but always existed. But even if it did have a beginning the big bang signatures are probably something derived from an occurance in our infinitesimally small corner of an infinite universe and not from the beginning of an infinite universe itself. I know that these considerations do not necessarily fit with derivations of the answers, per your link.

Jim G says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:01 amflimsy because like the article says, if truly infinite, any sample of infinity is still a zero % sample upon which to base anything
All our science today is based on our observations of that zero % sample, so is ‘flimsy’?
You are selling, but I’m not buying.
Be careful with that word ‘infinite’. The integers 1,2,3,4,5,… are a zero % sample of the real numbers [with decimals: 3.14159265,…] but the laws of addition and subtraction we derive from integers [1+1=2, etc] are also valid for infinitely many more real numbers, and are not flimsy.

leif says
but the laws of addition and subtraction we derive from integers [1+1=2, etc] are also valid for infinitely many more real numbers, and are not flimsy.
henry says
I am so glad that you figured out that the answer to simple questions (as posed by me to you earlier up in this thread) have tremendous eternal implications/
Jesus said: I am the the alpha and omega, the beginning and the endhttp://www.shroud.com/
from the point where I had figured out that there is no such thing as co-incidencehttp://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/
I came to realize that there truly is only one port to enter infinity
namely: by faith
Ephesians 2:8

HenryP says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:10 pmI came to realize that there truly is only one port to enter infinity namely: by faith
As your logic doesn’t work to well, faith is a good crutch.
Jim G says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:38 pmPi, infinite & nonrepeating.
Any sequence, no matter how long, would repeat, and not only once, but infinitely many times.

Jim G says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Pi, infinite & nonrepeating.
“Any sequence, no matter how long, would repeat, and not only once, but infinitely many times.”
You, of course, mean infinite sequence, not just “any sequence”.. The definition of Pi is an infinite, nonrepeating decimal number. Look it up. I believe insertion of the term, regularly repeating, as with some predictable pattern, may clarify as I also see your point that one could find segments which repeat an infinite number of times, in an infinite sequence. Seems there are always problems with infinities.

Jim G says:
January 16, 2013 at 2:12 pmSeems there are always problems with infinities.
There you have it. Arguments invoking infinities get you in trouble. And there are infinities greater than other infinities, actually infinitely many of then.

Jim G said
I know that these considerations do not necessarily fit with derivations of the answers, per your link.
Henry@Jim
Leif is good with general knowledge but his understanding of statistics, e.g. sampling and sampling techniques, and other stats is very poor. Perhaps he should do the relevant courses.
It is a waste of time to engage with him on such issues.

Leif sayshttp://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png
Henry @ leif
in the graph you quoted there I take it that SSN stands for SunSpot Number,
can I ask: what does FFT stand for?
SSN is not one of my favorite parameters to use, as such observations are heavily laden with error due to human bias, e.g. strength of eyes.
Do you perhaps have a similar graph using another solar parameter ?

HenryP says:
January 20, 2013 at 4:20 amcan I ask: what does FFT stand for?
Fast Fourier Transformhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Fourier_transformSSN is not one of my favorite parameters to use
Going back in time before 1835, SSN is the only thing we have.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy